Economics

Economics

Economics' most influential people

AS THE world economy emerges from recession and great new questions and challenges appear, the economics profession has engaged in a little self-reflection. Economists are asking themselves what, in fact, they've learned from their recent work and what the profession ought to focus on moving forward. With this reflection has come some reassessment of the profession's leading lights; the economists that offered the best guidance in the 2000s might not be the ones leading the way this decade.

To get a sense of current economist opinion, we turned to the experts at Economics by invitation. We asked them which economists were most influential over the past decade. And we asked them to give their thoughts on which economists were doing most to shape post-crisis thinking.

Many of the respondents submitted detailed explanations with their answers. Click here to see their contributions. I was struck by a few common themes—the idea that humility and a generalist approach to economics have been rewarded, the continued influence of the profession's founding fathers, and the sense that post-crisis economics is a wide-open place. Do read all the contributions.

But we also tallied the nominations for most influential, and the results are interesting. Asked which economist was most influential over the past decade, the network resoundingly answered, with seven individual nominations: Ben Bernanke. John Maynard Keynes was next, with four. Jeff Sachs, Hyman Minsky, and Paul Krugman followed with three, and Adam Smith, Robert Lucas, Joseph Sitglitz, Friedrich Hayek, and Alan Greenspan each had two. There were 26 other economists with a single nomination each*.

We followed up that question with another—which economists have the most important ideas in a post-crisis world? With four nominations, the leader here was Raghuram Rajan. Robert Shiller and Kenneth Rogoff each had three votes, Barry Eichengreen and Nouriel Roubini had two, and there were 13 other economists nominated once**.

This obviously isn't a scientific poll of the profession, but it is interesting to get some sense of from where the profession sees its influence emanating.

"Economists are asking themselves what, in fact, they've learned from their recent work and what the profession ought to focus on moving forward."

Expecting an Economist to be able to deliver insight about, and to navigate, a complex economy is like expecting a dedicated fan of American football to become a winning quarterback.

Economists, like fans, can cite extensive statistics, quote odds, etc., etc., etc. The problem is, so many have never been on the field running something called a business. All they have ever run are their own careers.

America's obsession with Economists as prospective experts on their economy is just as absurd at its obsession with hiring lawyer-politicians to be in charge of their country. It is ludicrous and produces ludicrous results.

Your analogy does not hold. Actually, if you were an economist, you'd realize that micro and macro phenomenons aren't the same. If a businessman has great insight into a particular situation, or about the market he's in, that does not mean he'll have great advice to give about the economy as a whole.

Macroeconomic policy is not like running a business, just like government can't be run like a corporation. Different goals, different means to get to those goals.

Lots of economists stay stupid things all the time, but that doesn't mean that good economists don't exist. There are so many counterintuitive effects in macro policy that you really do need people who specialize in analyzing all that from above.

Bernanke may be the most influential, because the FED gives him the biggest hammer. However, he has not produced any valid economic theory in the last decade.
Printing money to restart an economy devastated by printing too much money, he belongs in a rubber room, preferable in a straightjacket.

There are a lot of economists much better than these ones that live by the bets they or their firms do, based on their forecats. They don't need fame, cause they prefer making money, and they are good at it, but not known to the public. they are more like traders than economists. These are the good economists.

Fame obscures your view, even if you are the most humble guy in the wolrd. You are seeking to maintain your fame, therefore you can do much else than forecats to reach this goal. So the more famous the economist, the bigger the chance he/she will get it wrong.

The problem is you can't separate economics from politics. The notion that you can talk about the creation and distribution of wealth divorced from issues such as justice and equity is a fanciful one. Economics is not a science - the global financial crisis proved that once and for all - and it is time to start looking agaiin at issues of power and class

Ragu Rajan and John Taylor are the ones we are looking forward to shape the understanding of economics in this decade. But we still go back to the economic books written by the likes of Robert Lucas. The basic foundation of economic principles never changed.

You really have to distinguish between the early part of the decade, when Greenspan and the mainstream views that supported him were riding high, and after The Deluge, when their previously scorned critics have been hailed as geniuses.

I'll judge change in economics by the extent to which Knightian uncertainty in economic activity, especially investment, is acknowledged and incorporated by the mainstream.

Most commentators seem oblivious to the fact that economists are neither businessmen nor political philosophers. Instead, they apply the hypothetico-deductive method (or scientific method) to economic phenomena.

This involves generating testable hypotheses with careful and rigorous modelization, then testing these hypotheses with the available data, usually by using advanced statistical and econometric methods, thus possibly rejecting the model.

If continuing with "business as usual" means for economists to keep on using the scientific method, then I'd argue that it's quite desirable. We'll leave the "other ways" to do economics to the charlatans.